Heavy drinking combined with excessive sun exposure causes fluid loss, fatigue, dehydration, exhaustion, severe sunburn, alcohol poisoning, and impaired driving charges.

Other potential injuries and criminal charges occur as a result of excessive drinking including auto, boating, ATV, or motorcycle crashes; burns, drownings, assaults and violent crimes and DUI charges.

In Arizona high BAC levels call for harsh penalties in the event of a conviction. This article will provide insight into Arizona laws and penalties for Extreme DUI and Super Extreme DUI charges.

• 7 Facts about Excessive Drinking During Summer Months
• 20 Alcohol Consumption and DUI Safety Tips
• Arizona Extreme & Super Extreme DUI Laws and Penalties
• Criminal Defense for Extreme and Super Extreme DUI in Mesa AZ

7 Facts about Excessive Drinking During in the Summer Heat

1. According to National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), excessive drinking is the leading cause of premature deaths, and the fourth leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA.
2. The NIAAA reports that 70 percent of all deaths surrounding water recreation involved the use of alcohol.
3. NIAAA sponsored research studies that concluded alcohol impairment may have been contributed to 60 percent of boating accidents where injuries or fatalities occurred. In these situations, at least one, boating or watercraft operators or passengers was impaired due to alcohol.
4. Excessive use of alcohol results in impaired judgement and increased risk-taking by swimmers who may swim farther out then they should. Alcohol causes fatigue and increases the risks of hypothermia. This results in an inability of even experienced swimmers to return to shore, resulting in drownings.
5. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that in nearly 70 motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol, one of the drivers had a BAC of 0.15 percent or greater. The heat and sun which cause thirst may compel individuals to drink a greater amount at a faster pace. This can result in binge drinking. The NIAAA has defined binge drinking as having four, five, or more spirituous liquor beverages within several hours. Binge drinkers reportedly consume an average of 8 drinks per binge.
6. The National Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 9 out of 10 adults who binge drink are not dependent upon alcohol. Underage males were more likely to binge drink during the summer months, particularly in the month of July. Binge drinking leads to violence and assault injuries, motor vehicle crashes, chronic and serious medical conditions sexually transmitted diseases, and other injuries or illnesses.
7. According to the CDC binge drinking, particularly prevalent in underage drinkers in summer months. Binge drinking is the number one cause of fatal alcohol poisoning, high Blood Alcohol Content and impaired driving charges violation of Arizona’s Extreme DUI, and Super Extreme DUI laws.

20 Alcohol & DUI Safety tips

These 20 alcohol and DUI safety tips are separated into 4 categories:

♦ How to stay safe even if you don’t drink or don’t plan to drink.

♦ How to prevent DUI or an alcohol related accident if you plan to drink.

♦ How to avoid alcohol poisoning or other alcohol related injury.

♦ How to keep you, your family and guests safe if you are the host of a party where alcohol will be served.

If you don’t drink or don’t plan to drink:

• Be aware that others on the road around you may be driving impaired.
• Don’t ride with a driver who has been drinking.
• Be a designated driver.
• If someone has lost consciousness, call #911, or seek medical attention for them.
• Let a friend know if you think they’ve had too much to drink. Offer them a ride home or offer to help them obtain an alternative ride home.

How to prevent DUI or an alcohol related accident if you plan to drink:

• Don’t drive any type of motor vehicle, including boats, or ATVs.
• Say “no” to liquor shots.
• Plan not to get a DUI, by planning ahead for an alternative ride home.
• Make arrangements to stay overnight at the location, hotel or other nearby location.
• If you did not plan to drink, or if you drank an impairing amount, and find yourself behind the while of a vehicle, pull over to a safe, well- lit area or parking lot. Get out of the vehicle and try to call for a ride home. If you are not in a position to call for a ride and must sleep in your vehicle, make sure your automobile keys are no-where near the vehicle’s ignition.

How to avoid alcohol poisoning or other alcohol related injury:

• Don’t Binge Drink.
• Drink plenty of water.
• Protect yourself from the dehydrating effects of the sun which is enhanced while drinking.
• Don’t combine alcohol with drugs whether the substances are legal or illegal.
• Don’t try to “keep up” with others while drinking since each individual metabolizes alcohol at different rates.

If you are the host of a party or gathering where alcohol will be served:

• Offer non-alcoholic beverage choice and plenty of healthy snacks.
• Don’t allow underage persons to drink.
• Refrain from offering a person who has had too much to drink, any further liquor.
• Make sure your guests have a safe ride home. If a guest has had too much to drink, let them know and offer to take them home or help them obtain a sober ride.
• For pool parties, cook-outs, and other outdoor activities, make sure guests have access to a cool and shaded location.

Arizona Extreme & Super Extreme DUI Laws and Penalties

Extreme DUI Law – A person may be in violation of A.R.S. 28 -1382 – (A) (1) if they are found to be driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle with a BAC of 0.15 or greater, but less than 0.20 percent.

Super Extreme DUI Law – A person may be in violation of A.R.S. 28- 1382 – (A) (2) if they are found to be driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle with a BAC of 0.20 or greater.

In absence of aggravating factors both Extreme and Super Extreme DUI charges are classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor. These are the most severe charges in the misdemeanor classification.

High BAC levels in drunk drivers call for more harsh penalties in Arizona. Penalties for first time DUI Extreme DUI convictions under A.R.S. 28-1382 (A) (1) include:

• Jail terms of 30 days;
• Fines, fees, costs and assessments of $2500.00;
• Installation of a certified ignition interlock device (IID) in vehicle for 1 year;
• Alcohol and substance abuse screening, counseling or treatment;
• Probation;
• Driver’s license suspension;
• Other penalties the court deems necessary

Penalties for first time Super Extreme DUI convictions under A.R.S. 28-1382 (A) (2) include:

• Jail terms of 45 days;
• Fines, fees, costs and assessments of $2700.00;
• Installation of a certified ignition interlock device (IID) in vehicle for 1.5 years;
• Alcohol and substance abuse screening, counseling or treatment;
• Probation;
• Driving privileges suspended;
• Other penalties the court deems necessary

A second violation of Extreme DUI charges within 7 years calls for revocation of driving privileges for one year; and jail terms of 120 days for Extreme DUI, and 180 days for Super Extreme DUI convictions; Fines, fees and assessments of $3250.00 for Extreme DUI and $3750.00 for Super Extreme DUI; and 30 days Community restitution; IID for 1 year for Extreme DUI, and IID for 18 months for Super Extreme DUI, and alcohol abuse counseling, or treatment. .

A third DUI or more raises the charges to an Aggravated DUI (Felony) which exposes a person to 4 to 8 months in prison; Fines, fees and assessments of $4,000; revocation of driver’s license for one year; IID for two years; alcohol abuse counseling or treatment; and possible forfeiture of the driver’s vehicle.

Criminal Defense for Extreme and Super Extreme DUI in Mesa AZ

If you have been arrested for any DUI it is important that you consult an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible following your arrest.

No matter how severe the charges are that have been brought, you have the right to defend your charges and hire an effective attorney to represent you for them.

James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak, PLLC is a former prosecutor in Maricopa County and exclusively defends impaired driving and criminal charges for defendants through the Phoenix Metro areas and East Valley cities of Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, and Scottsdale AZ.

If retained, James Novak, will protect your rights, defend your charges, and work to get the most favorable outcome in your case.

He will evaluate your case to determine what defenses are the most likely to lead to a best resolution of your charges.

James Novak offers a free consultation for defendants with active charges in in Maricopa County within his service areas. Contact or call The Law Office of James Novak, PLLC at (480) 413-1499 and speak with James Novak directly about your matter, and obtain options for your defense. today.

Additional Resources:

• National Centers for Disease Control
• The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
• R.S. 28-1382 | Extreme & Super Extreme DUI Laws
• Arizona Governor’s Office on Highway Safety
• CDC Survey Analysis – How Arizona Stands on Binge Drinking and Drug Use

Related Articles:

• What You Should Know about Arizona DUI Laws
• Underage Drinking: Arming Influencers with Safety & Prevention Resources
• 5 Myths v. Facts about BAC, DUI, Alcohol & Drugs
• New Affirmative Defense for DUI Marijuana or Impairing Metabolite in Arizona
• AZ Supreme Court: No Additional Requirement under for Police to Rule out Innocent Driver Conduct

The new law makes it easier for individuals to be arrested and charged with stalking.

Under the amendment, persons are exposed to significant penalties for a wider range of conduct.

This article includes discussion on the following topics:

• Arizona stalking laws: myths v. facts;
• Traditional stalking law before the HB 2419;
• Provisions under HB 2419;
• Penalties for stalking; and
• The burden of proof and criminal defense

Stalking: 7 Myths v. Facts

Myth: If a person is not being physically followed by someone then they are not being stalked.

Fact: Arizona’s stalking law A.R.S. 13-2923 includes conduct directed at another person verbally, or in writing; through use of digital, electronic, or wireless communications; through GPS, r surveillance activities.

—

Myth: Stalking is a civil offense subject to fines only. It is not a crime.

Fact: Stalking in violation of A.R.S. 13-2923 is a criminal offense. Conduct described under this section is considered a felony. Convictions expose a defendant to prison terms and other serious criminal penalties.

—

Myth: A person can be found guilty of stalking if they engage in stalking conduct against a victim one time.

Fact: To be in violation of Arizona’s stalking law A.R.S. 13-2923, the stalking offense must involve a course of conduct rather than one incident.

—

Myth: A person may be found guilty of stalking if their actions were unintended or misdirected, if the victim still felt threatened and in fear of harm as a result of the conduct.

Fact: To be in violation of Arizona’s stalking law, the accuser’s must have knowingly and intentionally directed their course of conduct at the victim.

—

Myth: Threatening a person is the same as stalking them.

Fact: In Arizona “threatening” is different than stalking. To threaten or intimidate someone is in violation of A.R.S. 13-1202, and classified as Assault.

“Stalking” is considered an Offense Against Public order under A.R.S. 13-2923, in contrast to Assault.

However, charges are often brought concurrently, since a person can be stalked in a threatening manner, and threats may be included in the stalking course of conduct.

—

Myth: Social media posts and comments intended to stalk and threaten another person are protected by free speech rights.

Fact: The US Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected by the 1^st Amendment right to free speech of the United States Constitution (Virginia v. Black 2003; R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 1992). Since this case involves constitutional issues, it could be cited as authority in the event of prosecution for Arizona charges.

—

Myth: Written communication causes a reasonable person to feel threatened or stalked is the only evidence needed to convict someone of stalking.

Fact: In Elonis v. United States Supreme Court, June 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that it takes more than a “reasonable person” standard to prove criminal liability. Rather, the culpability or stand of mind should also be considered. The accused must have intended to make the threat, and written the communication for the purpose of making a threat in order to be convicted. Arizona’s law also requires culpability to be found guilty of stalking.

—

Arizona’s Stalking Law Prior to HB 2419

Under the previous law, a person could be charged with stalking for knowingly or intentionally engaging in conduct directed towards another, that would cause a reasonable individual to fear for their safety or that of an immediate family member.

Actions could only be considered stalking if they in fact, did cause a person to reasonably fear for his safety or an immediate family member’s safety.

Alternatively, stalking could be charged where the victim feared for his or her life or that of an immediate family member’s.

Historically, various types of conduct were considered stalking in Arizona, including situations in which someone maintained physical or visual proximity to another or directed threats toward a victim two or more times.

Stalking could also occur when the perpetrator used electronics, a digital system, or a global position system (GPS) device to watch the victim’s Internet or wireless activity without consent continuously for 12 hours or more, two or more times.

Stalking did not include constitutionally protected actions or those actions that were authorized by law, or consented to by the victim or their parent, if the victim is a minor.

Arizona’s New Stalking Law

Under HB 2419 the definition of stalking has been updated for our electronic age and significantly broadened to protect victims and specified others.

Stalking still includes the actions that have historically constituted stalking in Arizona.

However, under the amended law a person may also be found guilty of stalking if they intentionally or knowingly act in such a way that causes a victim to suffer “emotional distress” or reasonably fear that their property will be destroyed or damaged; or specified others with whom the victim has a relationship will suffer physical injury.

The specified others now include:

• Someone with whom the victim has a prior or current romantic or sexual relationship;
• A victim’s family member;
• A victim’s pet;
• Someone with whom the victim regularly lives or has lived within the six months before the last stalking incident;
• A victim’s livestock

The amendment defines emotional distress as significant distress or mental suffering that may require professional counseling or treatment.

However, under the new law, prosecutors will not have to prove that the victim actually needed or had counseling or treatment as a result of the emotional distress.

Conduct considered stalking may include direct or indirect actions committed more than one time by the accused or through a third party.

Additionally, stalking now encompasses communications in words, language, or images through email, or in an electronic communication, to a victim without authorization and without a legitimate purpose.

This includes communications or threats using text messaging, cell phone or mobile device communications, posts and comments on social media.

The amendment will become effective August 6, 2016.

Arizona Penalties for Stalking Convictions

This substantial broadening of the law, serves to harshly punish those who are convicted of engaging in a wide range of activities considered to be stalking conduct.

Under the new law, there are presumptive terms of imprisonment depending on the class of felony for which you receive a conviction.

Felonies in Arizona range from Class 1 to Class 6 felonies with Class 1 being the most serious of crimes.

Under the new law, stalking which causes a person to reasonably fear for their safety or that of specified others, is categorized as a class 5 felony.

Class 5 Felonies call for presumptive terms of 1.5 years in prison. If aggravated circumstances are involved, the prison term is raised to 2.5 years.

If someone commits an act of stalking that causes a victim to reasonably fear that they or specified others will die, the stalking offense charges will be brought as a class 3 felony.

The presumptive prison term for a class 3 felony is 3.5 years. If there were aggravated circumstances surrounding the incident, the defendant can receive an aggravated term of 8.75 years in prison.

For example, a defendant could receive 3.5 years in prison if they are convicted of stalking as a result of causing a person to reasonably be fear that the accused would cause death to his or her livestock.

Felony charges commonly call for large fines, fees, costs, restitution, community service, probation a felony criminal record, loss of the right to vote, and bear arms. Other penalties may be ordered at the discretion of the court.

Criminal Defense for Accusations of Stalking in Mesa, AZ

“Prepared to Defend”

No one is immune from being accused of a crime including that of stalking. A complaint or an arrest is not a conviction.

But a person must obtain an effective criminal defense attorney to protect their rights and defend their charges.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

Under the statutory Arizona jury instructions, jurors would be advised of law that applies to stalking A.R.S. section 13-2923, mental culpability, or state of mind of defendant with regard to the actions, and the statutory definitions of “knowingly” and “with intent”.

The Arizona jury instructions for stalking charges may be subject to revisions after the new amendments become effective.

In Arizona only about 2 to 3 percent of criminal cases need to go to trial the majority, 97 to 98 percent of cases are resolved prior to trial.

Favorable resolutions outside of trial may include reduction of charges, negotiated agreements, reduction of a felony to a misdemeanor, or dismissal of a portion or all of the charges.

James Novak is a former prosecutor who can provide aggressive, knowledgeable strategies that increase your chances of avoiding the harsh sentencing associated with stalking.

James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak, provides a free initial consultation for active charges in his service area. He will discuss your matter with you, and provide you with options for defense. Call or contact The Law Office of James Novak today for a confidential and free consultation at (480) 413-1499.

Additional Resources

• A.R.S § 13-2923 (Stalking)
• A.R.S. § 13-702 (First Time Offenders; Sentencing)
• Arizona Constitution Article 2, Section 8 (Privacy Rights)
• Arizona House Bill 2419
• Maricopa County Superior Court | Protective Order Center
• Arizona Resources | Domestic Violence Shelter Directory

Other Articles of Interest

• Arizona’s New Drug DUI Law – Ignition Interlock Device No longer Required Penalty
• Arizona Supreme Court Rules on Voluntariness of Consent in DUI Testing Case
• Your Right to Request Change of Judge in Arizona Criminal Court
• Right to Counsel before DUI Breath Test
• Consent to search, includes Drug K-9 search of Vehicle

The exceptions include situations where “exigent circumstances” exist.

This allows police to make a warrantless entry when they have probable cause to arrest a suspect who has fled, or to stop the imminent destruction of evidence.

Another exception is that the police may make a protective sweep incident to a lawful arrest.

Still another exception is an entry due to an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone within the house needs immediate aid.

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court limited warrantless searches in connection with the “Community Caretaking Exception,” which is the topic of this discussion.

The Incident

In this case, police officers and paramedics went to the defendant’s residence after receiving calls from neighbors, complaining that the defendant was behaving erratically.

When police and paramedics arrived, the defendant told them that he and his family had been handling up to seven pounds of mercury inside the home, which was being kept in the home in a glass jar.

The paramedics were concerned about contamination, based on the defendant’s statements and called the Fire Department to the scene.

The Fire Department ordered the defendant to be “rinsed off.” The man cooperated and was transported to the hospital for further examination.

After the suspect was taken to the medical facility, the firefighter, and police officer decided to enter he home to gather information about the mercury, with the belief that medical personnel may need this information for the man’s treatment.

The officer also reported that they felt it was necessary to enter in order to find out what they “were actually dealing with.”

After entering the residence, the officer detected an odor of marijuana, which he traced to the utility room. There the officer discovered several marijuana plants.

The officer then left and returned to the home with a valid search warrant.

Upon return, the officer re-entered the home and seized the Marijuana.

The defendant was then charged with production of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Even though possession of mercury is not unlawful, no mercury was found.

However, the officer saw “indications” of it in the hallway on the floor, which did not pose a threat. The Fire Department simply concluded just needed to be cleaned up.

Court Proceedings and Opinions

The trial court determined there were “exigent circumstances” for the warrantless search, admitted the marijuana as evidence, and ultimately found the defendant guilty.

The defendant appealed on the grounds that the motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted, and not denied.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the warrantless search was not justified and did not fall within any of the exceptions to a warrantless search of a suspect’s home.

The Appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision and held that no exceptions applied to the incident that justified a warrantless search and seizure into the home.

The State prosecution then asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the issue of whether the “community caretaking exception” applied.

The AZ Supreme Court held that neither exception of exigent circumstances or emergency aid applied to this case, and the warrantless entry into the home was lawful.

The court explained that although police were concerned about the large quantity of mercury that the suspect claimed was in the house, mercury possession isn’t unlawful.

There was no evidence that the presence of mercury presented an immediate threat. In order for exigent circumstances to exist, the police would have to have had probable cause that there was criminal activity in the home, not just the possession of mercury.

The Court acknowledged the police officers’ various functions in the community that involve caretaking and civil services.

But that this does not extend the police officers exemptions from the warrant requirement simply because they are engaged in those functions.

The Court differentiated an earlier case in which community caretaking applied as an exception on the grounds that it involved an automobile, rather than a house.

Citing precedent cases involving search and seizure controversies, the Arizona Supreme Court held that there is a greater expectation of privacy in a house than an automobile. Therefore, the community caretaking exception does not apply to homes.

Specifically, the Court explained that it reached the conclusion it did because the Arizona Constitution Article 2, § 8 more explicitly protects homes than the federal constitution does.

The Court did not explicitly consider the complications presented by A.R.S. 36-603. Under that Arizona law, when a county board of health or local health department in finds it necessary to enter a building in order to prevent or remove a nuisance and is refused entrance, an officer of the department can make a complaint to the justice of the peace.

Under those circumstances, the justice of the peace may then issue a warrant directing the peace officer to destroy or remove the nuisance during daylight hours.

However, based on this ruling, any evidence of criminal activity obtained during such an entry would not be admissible.

Arizona Privacy Rights

“The Arizona Constitution ensures that persons shall not be disturbed in their private affairs or their home invaded without lawful authority”.

In this case, the Arizona Supreme Court analyzed the language under the Arizona Constitution, specifically those involving Privacy Rights.

Article II section 8 of the Arizona Constitution reads:

“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”

The Conclusions of the AZ Supreme Court were that Arizona’s affords more protections in its specific language than the US Constitution.

US Constitution Privacy Rights

The US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment relating to privacy rights extends the following protections:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.

Whereby, the Federal law limits the protections for persons to be secure in their houses, and against unlawful search and seizures.

In contrast, the Arizona Constitution ensures that persons shall not be disturbed in their private affairs or their home invaded without lawful authority.

Thus, holding that the Arizona Constitution affords greater protections in some circumstances citing Arizona v. Bolt. Community Caretaking Doctrine – Why it did not Apply

The “Community Caretaking Doctrine” is one exception to the search warrant requirement.

It enables officers to conduct warrantless searches of a vehicle under particular circumstances.

This exception to a warrant stems from a Federal Case ruling over 40 years ago.

And although controversial to this day, it has been recognized by many state courts as a valid exception to the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment related to search and seizures.

The Doctrine stemmed from a case involving a police officer who was arrested for drunk driving. During the DUI stop the driver fell into a coma.

The officer that stopped him searched the vehicle to find the police officer’s gun to remove it from the vehicle.

During the search the police found blood covered belongs including a towel, floor mat, and night stick.

Charges for first-degree murder were subsequently brought.

The defendant challenged admittance of the evidence in trial because the officer did not have a search warrant and did not provide consent for the vehicle to be searched.

The US Supreme Court held that the search did not require a warrant and was admissible since the investigative officer was performing a community caretaking function.

This after police searched inside the vehicle and trunk to find the impaired police officer’s gun.

The Arizona Supreme Court decided that the State prosecution was not persuasive in arguing that the community caretaking exception should apply to homes as well as vehicles.

The AZ Supreme Court held that the adverse consequence of extending this doctrine to apply to home searches would significantly reduce privacy protections currently afforded by the Arizona Constitution.

The Justices pointed out that this does not prohibit current warrantless exceptions which include exigent circumstances, and emergencies where immediate attention is needed.

The Arizona Supreme Court also held that the community caretaking exception applies to auto searches only and not to homes.

Marijuana Laws in Arizona

Though the Court’s ruling in this case provides a crucial protection in home search and seizure cases, it does not prevent police from obtaining a warrant to search a person’s residence if they have probable cause to do so.

Production and possession of Marijuana is illegal in Arizona, outside of the Medical Marijuana laws.

Violations are taken very seriously, and most Marijuana offenses are classified as felonies. Penalties for Felonies in Arizona call for prison terms.

If a person is found to be in possession of less than two pounds of marijuana, they will be exposed to our months to two years in prison and a felony record.

If the police obtained the evidence illegally, however, your attorney may be able to get the charges dismissed.

However, if an exception to the warrant rule does not exist in a criminal case involving the discovery of marijuana in your home, as in the above-described case, your attorney will have strong grounds to ask that the evidence be suppressed.

Criminal Defense Attorney Mesa AZ

It is important in any criminal or DUI case to retain an effective legal advocate who will protect your rights and defend your charges.

If you are charged or arrested for marijuana possession or another drug crime, you should consult with an experienced Phoenix felony defense attorney to discuss your matter and your options for a defense as soon as reasonably possible.

James Novak is a highly skilled former prosecutor who is now a criminal defense attorney. Contact James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a confidential and free initial consultation if you face active criminal charges in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Scottsdale, or other surrounding East Valley Cities within Maricopa County.

Additional Resources

• Arizona 13-3925
• Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona
• Arizona 13-3912

Other Articles of Interest

• Violations of “Search and Seizure” Laws: How they Impact Prosecution, July 23, 2013
• U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Warrant Needed To Collect DNA If Arrested, June 9, 2013
• Yes, You Have Constitutional Rights At An Arizona Checkpoint, July 5, 2014

Bonnie and Clyde, the historical crime duo, were killed in their get-away car which had been riddled with over 100 bullets in 1934. Because of their violent cross country crime spree, they were considered highly dangerous. So authorities decided to capture them dead instead of alive.

As I studied the bullet riddled car, and some shredded and tattered clothing they had been wearing at the time of their death, I felt this overwhelming sense of terror and sadness. It was an eerie. I was saddened by the thought that in some way people looked at the vehicle and other related items as trophies, and as for Bonnie and Clyde themselves, they were remembered as icons.

But why? I suppose it was the “One person’s villain is another person’s hero” syndrome. As I looked around the room, I saw newspaper clipping, stories, and photos framed from 1932 to 1934. They followed events of the cross-country crime spree, and violence. Finally, the last photo I noted was taken immediately following Bonnie and Clyde’s death, taken of them as they lay lifeless by the vehicle. It was difficult to look at.

No, these were no trophies. There were no heroes. These were symbols of tragedy, and consequences of crimes that to this day, have not ceased to exist.

At the same time, I saw a failed criminal justice system…”Wanted dead or alive” is how the posters read. Regardless of how serious or violent the crime they were entitled to a fair trial by jury, under the United States Constitution. Whether they deserved a fair trial or not, was irrelevant.

Robberies need not be as epic or dramatic as those committed by Bonnie and Clyde to be considered some of the most serious crimes under law. Robbery convictions in Arizona and call for the serious penalties with life long penalties. If a gun or deadly weapon is possessed, even if it is not used, it is charged as “Armed Robbery” in violation of A.R.S. 13 § 1904. Armed Robbery is a Class 2 felony, the most severe, just short of Class 1 felonies that are reserved for the most serious of crimes, homicide. Aggravated criminal penalties can result in life in prison.

Robberies were committed at businesses in the Phoenix metropolitan area, 5 of them in Gilbert, 3 in Mesa and 2 in Chandler. A thirty-year-old male and his twenty-seven year old wife were arrested and accused of working as a team to rob businesses. The husband had lost his job, the unemployment check hadn’t arrived, and they had four minor boys to feed.

In order to commit the robberies, the husband would stand in line like a prospective customer and then, once he reached the front of the line, grab money out of the register. His wife would wait in the van with their four sons.

Under A.R.S. §13-1902, “robbery” is defined as taking property from another’s body or immediate presence and against their will, where the defendant threatens or uses force against them in order to coerce the person to release the property. Robbery is more serious than theft because it involves violence or the threat of violence. Robbery encompasses crimes involving brief verbal threats, as well as two people ganging up on a victim or using weapons. However, two people ganging up on a victim is the class 3 felony of aggravated robbery. Using a deadly weapon or even a fake gun can lead to an “armed robbery” charge.

Robbery is usually charged as a Class 4 felony and carries a sentence of between 18 months-3 years in Arizona. There may also be mitigating or aggravating circumstances associated with the robberies that can reduce or worsen the sentence.

In this case, there were ten robberies, and even if no deadly weapon was used, the potential penalties are severe. The nature of the man’s threats as he robbed the stores is not clear from the news articles. It is also not clear whether he pretended to have a weapon, which would lead to Class 2 armed robbery charges and likely worsen his sentence.

The man recently pled not guilty to the charges. The choice to plead not guilty may seem surprising. However, offenders have the constitutional and criminal right to plead not guilty no matter how serious the charges are or how strong the evidence is against them.

You should be aware, if you are charged with a crime, that pleading guilty or no contest does not necessarily mean you will necessarily receive a lesser sentence. In fact, if you plead guilty without a criminal defense attorney, you may in effect be waiving your right to retain a criminal defense attorney. You have the right to plead not guilty and to be presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is an exacting standard, which is why it behooves anyone who is accused or charged of robbery to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney. A good defense attorney may be able to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecutor in exchange for you pleading guilty or no contest. Or, if you have a strong defense, you can plead not guilty and your attorney can work to damage the prosecutor’s case and present your side of the story at trial. Contact The Law Office of James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a free consultation, if you face robbery or other serious charges in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert or other surrounding East Valley Cities.

Additional Resources:

• Robbery Classification, Arizona Revised Statutes
• Arizona Government Benefits
• Maricopa Superior Court

More Blogs

• Felony DUI Laws and Penalties in Arizona, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, July 1, 2013
• Arizona Supreme Court: DUI Partition Ratios Evidence Admissible, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, August 27, 2012

The burglary was videotaped with surveillance cameras, but the thieves were wearing bandanas and tee shirts over their faces. The three men got the front doors open, cut a security cable and removed the rifles worth about $12,000 from the store. There was additional damage to other guns worth about $12,000. The trio drove away in a white Chevy pickup.

The owner of the gun store was surprised that it took only 2 minutes for the burglars to break into the strict security system. Each gun had a serial number etched onto it. The public is being asked for tips and there is a $6000 reward for capturing the thieves and the stolen guns. The police believe the stolen guns will be used in future crimes.

If caught, the thieves will probably be charged with burglary and theft. In Arizona, criminal burglary is entering or remaining inside a building without the owner’s authorization, dwelling or fenced lot with the intent to commit a crime. Theft of items worth less than $1000 is usually charged as a misdemeanor. However, theft of guns are charged as felonies regardless of the value of the guns, and in this case, because the guns were valuable, the charges and potential sentencing will be more severe.

All three categories of burglary are considered felonies in Arizona. If a conviction is obtained, these may be punished by 1 or more years of incarceration, depending upon the severity of the burglary charges. Burglary in the first degree is charged when someone possesses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the burglary, whereas second-degree burglary occurs when someone has entered in a residential structure without a deadly weapon.

It isn’t clear from the news article whether the facts give rise to a first or second-degree charge. Since the burglary was most likely committed with intent to steal deadly weapons and those deadly weapons were possessed during the burglary, it might be charged as burglary in the first degree.

Burglary in the first degree of a commercial building is a Class 3 felony. (Burglary in the first degree of a residence is punished more severely as a Class 2 felony.) Assuming the prosecutor is able to secure a conviction, the thieves will face a minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 21 years in prison for the burglary conviction. The sentence will be more severe if the thieves are repeat offenders.

Theft of property worth between $3000 and $25,000 is a Class 3 felony. This means a conviction carries a potential maximum prison term of 8.75 years. The penalty may be worse if the thieves are repeat offenders or if any of the thieves are “prohibited possessors” –those who are not allowed to carry firearms. In Arizona, this includes people previously convicted of crimes involving the use of violence with deadly weapons.

Other charges may also apply because the thieves damaged other guns in the store. If you are charged with a serious crime like burglary or gun theft, an experienced criminal defense attorney can explain the charges and potential consequences. Contact the Law Office of James Novak for a careful, results-oriented defense from an experienced Arizona criminal defense attorney.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Title 13 Criminal Code
• 2012 Crime in Arizona
• Arizona sentencing for serious, violent or aggravated offenses

MORE BLOGS

• Aggravated Assault: The High Cost of Harming a Police Officer, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, August 3, 2012
• Assault Convictions Require “Intent” and “Knowledge” or “Recklessness”, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 1, 2012

Arizona State University recently released its crime statistics for 2012.

The university has four campuses: Tempe, West campus, Polytechnic Campus, downtown Phoenix and ASU Colleges at Lake Havasu City. The report shows crime statistics for 2010, 2011, and 2012. According to the ASU report, the Tempe campus has experienced the most crime over the past year.

The most commonly committed types of crimes were liquor law violations referred for disciplinary action. The 2012 numbers were down from 2011 and 2010, but they were still high. On the Tempe campus, there were 884 liquor law violations on campus property and 863 liquor law violations on residential facilities in 2012. On West Campus there were 39 liquor law violations on campus and 39 at residential facilities in 2012. On Polytechnic Campus, there were 29 such violations on campus properties and 29 at residential facilities in 2012. On the downtown Phoenix campus, there were 62 liquor law violations on campus and 62 at the residential facilities in 2012. The ASU Colleges at Lake Havasu City just opened in 2012 and there were no violations reported. In total there were 2007 liquor law violations at all the campuses. This is lower than the national average for drinking in college.

Although you might think that the most common liquor law violation is driving under the influence, DUIs are expressly not included in the category in the report. The report specifies that instead this category encompasses violations (or attempted violations) of laws prohibiting: the manufacture, sale, transportation, and possessing of intoxicating liquor, as well as maintaining unlawful drinking places, bootlegging, operating a still, furnishing liquor to an underage person, using a vehicle to illegally transport liquor, drinking on a public conveyance.

Under Arizona Revised Statutes 4-244, there are many ways liquor laws may be violated. It is likely the most common violations on a college campus are furnishing alcoholic beverages to minors, possessing alcohol as a minor and drunk and disorderly conduct. These issues frequently come up at college parties and Greek events.

While the most common liquor law violations are those that are referred for disciplinary action, there are also a sizeable number of liquor law arrests. On the Tempe campus alone there were 749 liquor law arrests. There were 815 such arrests on all campuses. The maximum fine for providing alcohol to someone under the age of 21 is $2500, while the maximum jail sentence is 6 months. However, this violation may stay on your criminal record for life and can affect future sentences for other violations and crimes. Moreover, ASU may also call for suspension, expulsion or another sanction.

Another category with a large number of violations was the category of drug law violations referred for disciplinary action. Again, as with the alcohol-related violations, the drug law violations were broken up into drug law arrests and drug law violations referred for disciplinary action. Drug law violations were down from 2011. Still, there were 716 such violations referred for discipline. There were 464 drug law arrests.

The impact of a drug law arrest varies depending on the type of drug, the quantity, and the nature of the offense. For example, simple possession of marijuana weighing less than 2 pounds is usually charged as a class 6 felony (the least serious type of felony charge). There is the potential of a year in jail, though it may be possible to get probation. On the other hand, possession of heroin is considered very serious and even possession of heroin is a Class 4 felony. Selling to a minor (many college students are minors) is a Class 3 felony. Even less serious drug law violations can be harmful because they give offenders a criminal record and can lead to disciplinary action by the school. This can detrimental when you are applying for jobs and have to explain a criminal conviction or irregularity in your transcript.

Regardless of the offense, students should contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to get the charges reduced or to negotiate for a lesser sentence. Contact The Law Office of James Novak at 480-413-1499 for a free consultation.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 4 Alcoholic Beverages
• Arizona State University Student Services Manual
• City of Tempe Police Department

More Blogs

• Felony DUI Laws and Penalties in Arizona, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, July 1, 2013
• Arizona Supreme Court: DUI Partition Ratios Evidence Admissible, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, August 27, 2012

Crime Suppression Operation Details Alcohol related crimes including DUI, underage drinking, drug crimes disorderly conduct, Aggravated Assaults, and other criminal offenses have plagued ASU, and Tempe. Among them, the most serious crimes have ended in death. These crimes, especially violent and dangerous crimes have become so problematic that the Police Chief, Tom Ryff has requested assistance and resources from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) Sheriff Joe Arpaio has agreed to provide resources and to team up with Tempe Police to combat the out-of-control crime in Tempe AZ. Beginning this evening The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department will begin a “Crime Suppression Operation” But this time with the help of Deputies and Officers from MCSO. There is even talk that the campaign will last the remainder of the fall 2013 semester.

If you thought you saw a lot of police officers in the area, during last months “Safe and Sober” campaign which was said to include an historical number of officers, prepare to see a lot more than that in this sting. One can expect to see Tempe Police Officers and MCSO Deputies on many streets, sidewalks, horseback, bicycles, motorcycles, squad cars, vans, in and around bars, and parties. They will be looking to prevent violence, disorderly conduct, alcohol related offenses and to make as many arrests as possible.

The command post for the operation will be set up at the Tempe Fire Station Training Facility near the cross streets of University and Dorsey, beginning Thursday September 12, 2013. Sheriff Joe Arpaio vows to continue the sting “as long as it takes to get campus partying under control”.

Law Enforcement Focus: Underage Drinking, Disorderly Conduct, and Violent Crimes

Aggravated Assault is a Felony and considered a violent crime against a victim. All victim crimes call are serious and call for harsh punishments if convicted in Arizona. Violent Crimes have become rampant in Tempe AZ. Assault and Aggravated Assaults involving students and Tempe residents have been alarming and on the rise. Last week, for example, a 19-year-old male student was assaulted near Apache Boulevard and Rural Road, in Tempe AZ.

A surveillance video shows that several young men encountered the student in a lobby and then three of them forced him to get into an elevator. Two of them stepped inside the elevator. The student tried to fight back, but he was brutalized. When the door opened a few floors up, a witness saw two young men standing over the victim with blood on their hands. The victim was left unconscious and ultimately needed to have his broken jaw wired shut.

The victim, believed to be a member of a fraternity on probation, was also very drunk when the police contacted him at the hospital. He couldn’t remember much about what had happened nor who had beaten him. The Tempe police department has made statements suggesting that the rise in violent activity on the ASU campus is linked to alcohol use. The fraternity to which the victim belonged was on probation because officials believe a fraternity member threw a bottle of liquor into a fire and burned two girls. One of the perpetrators in this case is also believed to be a member of a different fraternity.

The Link between Alcohol and Violence

The link between alcohol and violence is not entirely clear. However, a number of separate findings suggest that young people especially should be very conscious of how much alcohol they consume. For certain personality types at least, there is a risk of more severe violence as a result of drinking.

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, there is a greater risk for violence among young adults ages 18-30 than in any other age group. Lab research dating back 15 years shows that intoxicated persons are more aggressive than sober people. While alcohol was not found to be an instigator of violence, the more drinks a male consumed in the study, the more severe the injury to himself and to others. Alcohol may be a facilitator of particularly aggressive behavior though it may not cause it.

Aggravated Assault Laws and Criminal Penalties in Arizona

The beating such as the one described in this article would likely to be charged as felony aggravated assault. While many assaults are misdemeanors, under Arizona law, a person can be charged with aggravated assault if someone “knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally” causes a serious physical injury to someone. There are a number of other specific circumstances that elevate an assault to aggravated assault, including use of a deadly weapon, causing disfigurement or impairment or a bodily organ, or committing assault while a victim is bound.

Criminal Charges of Aggravated Assault in violation of A.R.S. 13-1204 can range of charges from Class 6 felony (least severe) to Class 2 felony (most severe). A Class 6 aggravated assault conviction can lead to prison terms from 18 months to 3 years. A Class 2 aggravated assault conviction, however, can lead to a prison term of 7 to 21 years. Class, 5, 4, and 3 aggravated assault offenses are punished with terms of imprisonment between these two poles. Aside from imprisonment, a perpetrator of aggravated assault can be fined up to $150,000 and, depending on the severity of the injuries caused, victim restitution.

Other Consequences of violent crime convictions

Legal battles are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to consequences of a conviction. The severity of the punishments in an aggravated assault conviction can affect you if you are a college student or any other person. A felony conviction can affect your ability to finish college and go to graduate school, reduce your employment opportunities, particularly in professions where background checks are conducted such as law and teaching, impact your ability to possess a gun, and result in significant social stigma. Felony criminal records follow a person for many years into the future. They also result in loss of some civil rights that person who otherwise enjoy such as loss of the right to vote, and the right to possess or carry a firearm. A person convicted of an aggravated assault many also be ordered by the court to pay restitution to the victim in the form of medical bills, or property damage. The defendant may also be sued in civil court by the victim for damages or by the victim’s family in the event the incident leads to death of the victim.

Defending Felony Assault Charges in Tempe AZ

There is a great deal at stake. A conviction for Felony Assault can ruin a person’s life. But no matter how serious a crime, a person has the right to defend their charges, and retain legal representation in their case. If you face these types of charges, it is extremely important to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent you. Tempe AZ criminal defense attorney will protect your rights, defend your charges, advocate your side of the story, tailor a defense based on the facts of your case, , defend you at trial, and work to get the best outcome in your case. Contact the Law Office of James Novak to receive a strong defense from an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona Aggravated Assault Statute
• Arizona sentencing for serious, violent or aggravated offenses
• Phoenix Superior Court

MORE BLOGS

• Aggravated Assault: The High Cost of Harming a Police Officer, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, August 3, 2012
• Assault Convictions Require “Intent” and “Knowledge” or “Recklessness”, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 1, 2012

Violent crimes continue to plague Tempe AZ, especially on, and near Arizona State University (ASU). Tempe Police reported #911 and other calls for help had increased by 97 percent in 2012 over 2011, and arrests in criminal incidents continue to rise in 2013. Incident reports and service calls for criminal violations in and around ASU are taxing Tempe and ASU Police resources.

Police report that the type of crimes that have increased include violent crimes, assaults, binge drinking, underage drinking, disorderly conduct, and criminal property damage. At least two deaths this year were reportedly linked to violence between fraternity rivals, while many others were seriously injured. Many of these are crimes against victims and carry the harshest sentencing of any crimes in Arizona. Tempe officials are proposing ordinance changes making it easier to crack down on off-campus parties, while local police agencies seek out and making arrests for underage drinking laws, assaults, and other violent crimes.

Assault Crimes may be charged as Misdemeanors under A.R.S. 13-1203 or Aggravated Felonies A.R.S. 13-1204, depending on circumstances and nature of the offenses. A person may be found guilty of misdemeanor assault in Arizona if they do one of the following:

(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly injure someone else’s body; (2) Intentionally give someone else a reason to fear they will be harmed; (3) Knowingly touch another person in order to provoke, injure or insult the person.

Misdemeanor assault may be punished with up to one year in prison and maximum fines of $2,500. You may also have to pay restitution to the victim.

A prosecutor may elevate a misdemeanor assault to an aggravated (felony) assault charge in eleven different circumstances. Felony aggravated assault carries significantly greater penalties than misdemeanor assault. For example, felony aggravated assault may be punished with 15 years of imprisonment, as well as the stigma of a felony conviction, loss of a professional license, ineligibility to own or possess a firearm and many other harsh consequences.

A few of the eleven circumstances in which a defendant who is 18 years old or older may be charged with aggravated assault include those where he: causes “serious bodily harm”, uses a weapon or dangerous instrument, enters a private home with the intent of committing the assault, assaults someone who is 15 years old or younger, or assaults people of certain professions while they are working (including teachers, nurses, prison officials, fire department members, and paramedics).

Felony aggravated assault may also be charged if someone commits one of the forms of simple assault described above and also intentionally or knowingly prevents “the normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck or by obstructing the nose and mouth either manually or through the use of an instrument”, and a domestic relationship exists. In other words, this special type of aggravated assault can be charged against someone who attempts to strangle a domestic partner.

A few weeks ago, the Court of Appeals ruled on a case involving both simple assault and aggravated assault. In the case, a couple was arguing via text messages. When the male partner came home, he grabbed the woman, knocked her head, and squeezed her neck. Later he pressed his arm against her throat and told her to leave.

The male partner was charged with aggravated assault for strangling her, simple assault for knocking her head, and also for trying to stop her breathing a second time. The jury convicted him of the first and last charge. He was sentenced to eight years in state prison.

The defendant appealed on the grounds that the charge of aggravated assault related to strangulation was unconstitutionally vague (among other reasons). He claimed that nobody in Arizona could know what the statute meant by “normal” breathing or circulation and he referred to the state’s own expert who testified that it was difficult to say what “normal” breathing was, even in medicine.

The defendant also argued that his due process rights were violated because all three forms of simple assault were included within the aggravated assault charge. He further argued that the jury should have been instructed as to which type of assault he had committed.

The appellate court explained that even though “normal” is a relative term, it is not unconstitutionally vague. Plainly read, the statute prohibits stopping another person’s normal or typical breathing. The court also explained that this type of aggravated assault is a unique offense, not just another variation on the eleven circumstances that turn simple assault into felony aggravated assault. Ultimately the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

In many cases, these crimes have been serious and resulted in felony charges. Penalties are severe if convicted. Criminal penalties can include jail or long term prison sentencing; large fines, fees, assessments; restitution; counseling, probation, or community services, victim restitution, and other court ordered penalties. But the consequences are much broader than criminal penalties. A student may be suspended or expelled from school or athletic teams, lose scholarships, residency status as a US Citizen, termination from their job or lose opportunities for future employment, become ineligible for school loans, and have a criminal record, lose driving privileges, and lose other rights that they currently enjoy.

As you can see, assault is a serious offense in Arizona, particularly if it is charged as aggravated assault in Tempe AZ and other cities within Maricopa County. If you or a loved one is accused of assault, contact knowledgeable criminal defense attorney James Novak at (480) 413-1499.

Additional Resources

• Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1204
• Arizona Judicial Branch – Rules of Criminal Procedure
• Arizona Superior Court – Case Procedures
• Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence

MORE BLOGS

• Aggravated Assault: The High Cost of Harming a Police Officer, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, August 3, 2012
• Assault Convictions Require “Intent” and “Knowledge” or “Recklessness”, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 1, 2012

Privacy rights were outweighed by law enforcement interests in the United States Supreme Court’s June 3rd ruling in Maryland v. King. In this case, the Court was divided 5-4 over the question of DNA sample collection. All states and the federal government require convicted felons to submit DNA samples to law enforcement. But this was the first case to look at whether even those who are merely arrested (and assumed innocent until proven guilty) can be required to submit their DNA to law enforcement.

The Supreme Court ruled that states may–without a warrant– routinely collect DNA samples from people arrested for a “serious crime.” This was a highly anticipated ruling because it is the Court’s first on the privacy of genetic information. The ruling focused on Maryland’s law, which requires DNA sampling of those arrested for serious crimes, supposedly for the purpose of identifying them. However, the case’s language was so broad that it opened the floodgates for all states to permit DNA sampling of people arrested, even if they are arrested only on a minor charge.

The case arose from a criminal defendant’s appeal after he was convicted for a felony only because the Maryland police were able to match his DNA in a federal database. After the defendant was arrested for assault, the police swabbed the defendant’s cheek to get a DNA sample and they submitted the sample to a federal DNA database. The swab was not necessary to prove the assault.

The federal database to which the sample was submitted matched the defendant’s DNA to DNA collected from a crime scene six years earlier. Because of the routine cheek swab, the defendant was convicted of the earlier serious crime.

The Maryland Court of Appeals threw out the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that a cheek swab violated Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. Usually the State must obtain a warrant if it wants to conduct any kind of invasive physical testing. The State appealed the appellate ruling.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, compared DNA sampling of the arrested to fingerprinting which is legal. The Court overturned the Court of Appeals. Justice Kennedy wrote that states could collect DNA from people arrested for “serious offenses.”

The majority opinion reasoned that Maryland’s law supported the well-established and legitimate governmental interest of identifying people in custody as opposed to solving crimes. The majority also reasoned that a cheek swab is minimally intrusive from a physical perspective.

Justice Scalia, joined by three liberal justices, wrote the dissent. He warned, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

This ruling impacts all people in states that authorize DNA testing, including Arizona. At present, Arizona’s law enforcement is able to collect DNA from anyone imprisoned for a felony offense, including those on probation. However, Arizona has also passed legislation to allow for the collection of DNA from those who are merely arrested, not convicted, of a serious crime.

This group includes those who are arrested for certain sexual offenses, burglary, prostitution, and other serious, violent or aggravated offenses. Although this group represents a relatively narrow number of criminal defendants now, as Justice Scalia pointed out the Supreme Court’s ruling is broad enough that states could widen the net of people who are required to submit to DNA sampling. As Justice Scalia suggests, in the future, DNA sampling may be part of police booking procedure even in traffic cases.

Additional Resources

DNA Laws Database Mesa Police Department Mesa Municipal Court

If you are arrested, your future may depend on hiring an experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. Contact the Law Offices of James Novak at (480) 413-1499.

MORE BLOGS

Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Law Stands Ground, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, June 4, 2013 Marijuana DUI: The Impact of Montgomery V. Harris in Arizona, Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog, March 13, 2013

Arizona has tough DUI laws. They may get tougher, but not by much. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an independent federal agency, recently recommended, among other things, that the blood alcohol threshold be dropped from .08 BAC to .05 in all 50 states. Those drivers whose blood alcohol content (BAC) is 0.08 are presumed under Arizona and other state laws to be impaired.

The NTSB is an investigative agency. It doesn’t have the authority to institute the changes. It is up to the Department of Transportation whether it wants to endorse this recommendation or not. States will each have to decide whether to accept the recommendation from NTSB. If the NTSB gets support from the Department of Transportation and other states, they will be closer to Arizona’s current policies against drunk driving.

The American Beverage Institute (ABI) and the National Restaurant Association (NRA) took offense to this recommendation. They believe that a lower BAC targets moderate drinkers in addition to drivers who are actually drunk. A representative of ABI said, “Moving from 0.08 to 0.05 would criminalize perfectly responsible behavior.”

ABI points to research indicating that less than 1% of over 32,000 traffic fatalities in 2011 were caused by drivers with a BAC between .05 and .08. Moreover, those with twice the current BAC (a BAC of .15 or higher) cause more than 70% of the drunk driving deaths.

NTSB argues that the research shows you start to be impaired in cognitive and visual abilities around .05, not. 08. This increases the likelihood of a serious crash. Most countries seem to agree, since they have BAC limits at .05 or lower. But NTSB, an independent federal agency, said research shows most drivers suffer impairment of cognitive and visual functions like depth perception at a BAC level of 0.05, increasing the risks of a serious crash. According to the agency, the risk of having an accident increased substantially at .08.

More than 100 countries have BAC limits set at 0.05 or lower, according to the agency. According to another source, the U.S., Canada, and Iraq are among the small group with a BAC threshold of .08. Most European countries, most South American countries and Australia have set their BAC levels for purposes of assessing drunk driving to .05.

A representative of the AZ Governor’s Office of Highway Safety has stated that this new federal law won’t affect Arizona, claiming Arizona has “Not only the toughest laws in the country, but the toughest enforcement in the country.” He believes this extends to Arizona’s policy on driving while using drugs, too.

Arizona has passed a number of laws that are harsher than the DUI laws in other states. Among them is a law that says even if motorists have a blood alcohol level below .08 they can be cited if they are impaired.

A recently passed law requires first time DUI offenders to install an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) in their car or other vehicle for six months. An IID requires a driver to pass a breathalyzer test before being permitted to start the vehicle. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the number of drunk driving fatalities has dropped 46% since 2007.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• NTSB Safety Report on Eliminating Impaired Driving
• Arizona DUI Laws
• Arizona MADD.org

A DUI conviction in Arizona carries many serious penalties. If you are pulled over or charged with a DUI, you should contact an attorney with experience in DUI defense. It can make a big difference. Contact the Arizona DUI attorneys at the Law Offices of James Novak at 480-413-1499.

MORE BLOGS

Marijuana DUI: The Impact of Montgomery V. Harris in Arizona, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, March 13, 2013 Prescription Drug DUI Charges, Phoenix DUI Lawyer Blog, January 28, 2013

Here are some facts that have been released about the program: • It will be conducted every Saturday in May, excluding Memorial Day weekend; • Sessions will be held in various different parts of Phoenix in church parking lots or other trusted locations; . • Anyone can drop off a weapon anonymously. City officials announced that no questions will be asked regarding the source of the firearm or it’s possessor; • The owner will receive an unknown amount to be determined at a later date for the weapon; • The Phoenix Police will check to see if the firearm was stolen. If so, it will be returned to the rightful owner; • If the weapon was used in a criminal offense, it will be retained by police to be used an investigation.

All other firearms will be taken out of circulation.

More details will be released as May approaches. For more information a person can contact *Arizonans for Gun Safety at 602-547-0976.

Criminal Defense Attorney Phoenix AZ
Gun offenses are very serious crimes in Arizona. Convictions under A.R.S. 13-3102 Arizona criminal code call for harsh penalties, many of which are felonies. All firearms used in the course of conducting or fleeing from a crime are felonies, and call for aggravated sentencing of the initial crime. Felony convictions call for a minimum sentence of 1 year in prison, and loss of the right to possess a gun, and classify the person as a Prohibited Possessor under the Arizona gun laws.

If you have been arrested for any weapons crimes under Arizona you should always consult a criminal defense attorney before pleading guilty to charges. If retained, they will protect your rights, defend your charges, and make every effort to get a good outcome in your case. There may be constitutional rights that were violated, or other defenses that may be used to resolve the matter favorably on your behalf.

*The Law Office of James Novak is a criminal defense firm serving clients in the Phoenix area. It has no affiliation with Arizonans for Gun Safety or the Phoenix Police Department.

Additional Resources:

• Phoenix Buyback Program

• Arizona Gun Laws

• Arizona sentencing for serious, violent or aggravated offenses

• Phoenix Police Department

• Phoenix Superior Court

If you “Like” this article please let us know with “+1”. Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 Free Initial Consultation Arizona DUI, DWI, Drunk Driving & Criminal Defense Firm Serving Tempe, Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, & Scottsdale AZ Maricopa County

The National Center for Disease Control (CDC) describes use of prescription medication as an epidemic and the fastest-growing drug problem in the Country. It is said that more teens are using prescription medicine than cocaine, meth and Ecstasy combined.

Final numbers are still being tallied from police agencies throughout Arizona. But preliminary statistics for 2012 indicate Drug DUI arrests are expected to jump from 11% in 2011 up 14% in 2012 of all DUI arrests in Arizona. Officials attribute this to increased funding for specialized police drug detection and impairment training such as Arizona’s Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Program. Police Agencies are now using state of the art equipment, and are well trained for Drug DUI enforcement. For example, Gilbert AZ Police Department, is equipped with mobile DUI enforcement vans; unmarked vehicles; special DUI motor cycle enforcement units; granted allowances for overtime; and training and certification to police officers in phlebotomy DUI processing.

Other contributing factors for the increase in Drug DUI arrests are frequency of use and access to prescription drugs by adults, and youths.

At this juncture, there are no published statistics as to how many of the Drug DUI arrests were Marijuana related. So no assumptions can be made as to whether or not legalization of Medical Marijuana in Arizona contributed to the increased Drug DUI Arrests.

Arizona Drug DUI Laws

Under A.R.S. 28-1381 in addition to alcohol DUI laws, it is also unlawful to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in Arizona, if a person is impaired to the slightest degree due to the influence of any drug; vapor releasing toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances. This includes legal, or illegal drugs, or Medical Marijuana. It also includes drugs obtained with a valid prescription or any over-the-counter drugs. This means that a person can be cited for DUI if they have had no spirituous liquor at all, but are driving impaired to being under the influence of a drug.

A first or second DUI with no aggravated factors in Arizona is a Class 1 Misdemeanor. This includes drug related DUI charges. Penalties are generally the same or similar as sentencing for alcohol related DUI charges. If convicted penalties call for 10 day jail terms; mandatory substance abuse counseling; fines, fees, and other harsh penalties. Jail terms may be reduced to 24 hours, upon successful treatment of an alcohol or substance abuse program.

Criminal Defense Attorney Gilbert AZ

Motorists are not aware that a drug may impair their ability to driver. But in Arizona, it is not a defense for a motorist to claim that a driver was aware that drug had the potential to impair their driving or not. If you have been arrested for any type of DUI, your future and freedom are in jeopardy. You should a qualified consult a criminal defense attorney who defends charges in the city where you received the citation, to discuss your matter, and defense options.

Additional Resources:

•Arizona State Legislature – Drug DUI Laws
•Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Annual 2011 DUI Enforcement Statistics

• Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety 2012 DUI Enforcement statistics (preliminary to 12/27/12)

• Drug Abuse in Arizona – Office for Children, Youth and Families

• National Center for Disease Control – Prescription Drug Abuse

• Gilbert Police Traffic Unit

If you “Like” this article please let us know with “+1”. Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 Free Initial Consultation Arizona DUI, DWI, Drunk Driving & Criminal Defense Firm Serving Tempe, Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, & Scottsdale AZ Maricopa County

On November 9, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a criminal DNA testing case, Maryland v. King (12-207), which could result in nation-wide impacts. The defendant’s DNA samples were collected immediately following his arrest. He was subsequently convicted of rape. King’s Attorney attempted to suppress the DNA evidence, on the grounds that it was taken unconstitutionally. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed, and overturned King’s conviction. They ruled that suspects under arrest but not convicted, have more rights than convicted felons; and that DNA testing was more invasive than standard finger print evidence. The State of Maryland disagreed, and appealed to the US Supreme Court to hear the case. The case is expected to be heard by the high court in June 2013.

DNA testing has been the subject of much controversy. Objection to the DNA testing of non-convicted suspects is that it is in violation of a person’s 4th Amendment Constitutional Right against unlawful search and seizures.

All states currently use DNA testing as an admissible investigative tool. Currently it is lawful in most states, including Arizona, to collect report and distribute DNA results for convicted felons. However, not all states allow collection, analysis, reporting, distributing, and use of DNA testing as evidence against first time criminal offenders, with no felony convictions.

DNA Testing Laws in Arizona

Arizona allows collection, reporting and distribution of DNA evidence from prison inmates and convicted felons. Criminal DNA samples are maintained by in a forensic data base by authorized Law enforcement agencies, and indexed by the FBI. However, in recent years, Arizona also passed legislation allowing DNA to be collected from suspects who were arrested, but not convicted of a felony in specific situations. Under Arizona Law A.R.S. 13-610 DNA may be collected from a suspect if they were arrested for serious, violent, and dangerous felony offenses on involving a victim.

The law allows for DNA testing in situations where the suspect was arrested for a criminal offense specified by law, even if they were not convicted of the crime. Examples of these offenses include but are not limited to sexual offenses and assault; burglary in the first or second degree; homicide; and other dangerous offenses involving victims.

Criminal Defense for Charges involving DNA cases

Anyone arrested for a serious or dangerous crime, should always consult a criminal defense attorney before pleading guilty. Felony convictions for these types of crimes, will result in years to life in prison, or even expose a defendant to the death penalty. A defendant should always invoke their right to retain qualified legal representation to defend their rights and charges. If DNA evidence was collected unlawfully it may lead to suppression of the evidence in favor of the defendant. If DNA evidence does not lead to a match of the suspect arrested, the charges may be dismissed or lead to a “not-guilty” verdict in a jury trial. The lawfulness or validity of DNA evidence should always be argued by a qualified criminal defense attorney.

Additional Resources:

• Arizona State Legislature

• Arizona State Bar – Jury Instructions for Evidence

• United States Supreme Court – Maryland v. King

• US Supreme Court Orders – Petition Granted Maryland V. King, Alonzo J. (12-207)

If you “Like” this article please let us know with “+1”. Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Firm Serving Maricopa County Phoenix-metro, and surrounding East Valley Cities

On September 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Missouri, Petitioner v. Tyler G. McNeely. The decision could affect DUI blood test consent cases throughout the nation.

The high court will rule on the issue of when the police need a warrant to draw blood from a suspect stopped on DUI, if they refuse a blood test. The law requires consent by the suspect to for the blood test to be administered, or in the alternative, with a warrant by police. The warrant could be waived, however, under the following circumstances:

• A delay could threaten a life; or
• A delay would destroy potential evidence.

In this case, the suspect refused both the breath test, and was also unwilling to take a blood test. The police proceeded with the chemical blood test which reportedly was 0.154% and exceeded the legal limit in Missouri of .08%.

The defendant moved to suppress the blood test on the challenge that since he did not consent to the test; the officer did not seek a warrant; and the officer was not concerned about any delay jeopardizing the evidence. As a result, the defendant’s challenge was that it violation of his 4th Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizures.

The lower court suppressed the DUI blood test evidence, and the Missouri Supreme Court sided affirmed the lower trial court’s ruling. The US Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in January 2013.

Arizona DUI Blood Test Consent Laws

The Arizona Supreme Court also held that under A.R.S. § 28-1321 the suspect must either expressly consent. In the case of a refusal the e police must have a warrant to administer a blood test. A warrant will be granted, if the police have just cause to believe a motorist was driving impaired due to alcohol or drugs. If the driver refuses the breath test, or does not consent to the blood test, civil penalties will be imposed including a one year loss of driver’s license. The refusal will also be held against them in court. Refusals are perceived as an act of non-cooperation, or that the driver refused because they knew they would test positive for drugs or alcohol.

DUI Defense Attorney Mesa AZ

If you were arrested for any DUI you will need to address both the Civil Court penalties and the Criminal Court charges. You should always consult a qualified Criminal attorney before pleading guilty to a drunk driving or DUI charges. In addition to civil penalties, sentencing for convictions also include jail; fines, fees, assessment costs, drug or alcohol screening, and use of Ignition Interlock Device (IID) on your vehicle. If retained, your attorney will represent you, defend your charges, make sure your rights are not violated, and work to get the best resolution in your case.

Additional Resources:

• US Supreme Court Docket – Missouri, Petitioner v. Tyler G. McNeely

• Arizona State Legislature – Implied Consent Laws

• Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Programs

If you “Like” this article please let us know with “+1”. Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Firm Maricopa County

At the center of a two year legal batter, is the provision in the law known as “Show me your papers”, and was the most controversial of Arizona’s SB1070. Under this provision a police stop must still be a lawful one. In other words, the “reasonable suspicion” that a violation of the law occurred in order to make a legal stop.

During the stop, the officer determines that there is reasonable suspicion that a person is unlawfully in the United States. If reasonable suspicion exists that the person may be in the country illegally, the officer must make a reasonable attempt to contact the USB Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency to confirm the immigration status of the detainee.

The law also requires police to verify immigration status of arrested or imprisoned persons prior to their release.

Lawful Documentation of US Residency

Under SB 1070 A.R.S. 11-1051 (B) a person is presumed to be in the United States legally if they can provide the following documentation:

• Valid Arizona Driver’s License;
• Valid Arizona Nonoperation ID License;
• Valid Tribal Enrollment cared or alternative Tribal ID;
• Valid US Federal, State, or Local Government issued ID, if the entity requires proof of legal presence to issue any of the above documents.

U.S. Presidential Executive Order Amnesty Exceptions

There are exceptions to the rules, including those afforded under the U.S. President’s Executive Order Decree on June15, 2012, which was also effective immediately. Eligible applicants will receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and will be eligible to apply for a work or school permit to reside in the United States.

This applies to otherwise illegal immigrants. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began accepting applications for “Deferred Actions” for the following persons:

• Those brought to the US before the age of 16; and
• Those who are under the age of 31; and
• Who have lived in the USA continuously from June 15, 2007 to June 15, 2012;
• Currently enrolled and attending school; or
• Graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school; or
• Earned a General Education Development (GED) Certificate; or
• An honorably discharged veteran of the US Coast Guard or US armed forces; or
• Have not been convicted of a felony; serious misdemeanor; three or more other misdemeanors; and
• They do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The immigration laws in Arizona and on a Federal level continue to change and face legal challenges. Police spokespersons extended their intent to “Treat all individuals with dignity and respect, which is the ethical foundation of policing”. We will continue to follow up on changing legislation.

• US Citizenship and Immigration Services

• SB 1070 Arizona Legislature

If you “Like” this article please let us know with a +1! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 Free Consultation!

www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Phoenix,Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, AZ

Arizona has adopted the guidelines from National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA). The guidelines set parameters on organization; administration; a conducting of the stops. This includes which cars to stop. According to NHTSA guidelines the vehicles which will be stopped are pre-determined by city officials or the police. Those vehicles must be chosen by a mathematical formula or sorts, for example, every 3rd vehicle or every other vehicle.

Locations of DUI Task Forces or Checkpoints

Generally the DUI Task forces are set up in areas where high traffic volume is expected. For example in the case of a summer holiday, the Police may set up check points in areas where people may be popular establishments where liquor is sold. This Memorial Day Weekend, some of the DUI Checkpoints include the following areas in Maricopa County:

• Phoenix – Metro and suburbs
• Areas near University of Phoenix Stadium
• Highway leading to Lake Pleasant in Arizona

How to avoid a DUI Task Force Stop
1) The best way to avoid a task force stop is not to drink and drive;
2) Whether you are plan to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it is best to avoid a DUI stop if you can. Not many people enjoy the long lines, or the experience in general. You can check your local media website, police departments, County websites, and even social media outlets on the internet;
3) NHTSA also requires that signs be readily present and posted near the Checkpoint. Stay vigilant if you should approach one, and take another route if possible;
4) If you did not plan to drink and drive, but find you are in that position, call on a friend or family member or taxi to take you home;
5) If you know in advance you will be consuming liquor, make plans in advance for a designated driver, or alternative arrangements to get home safely. Judgment decisions are always more prudent when a person not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

DUI Lawyer Phoenix AZ

If you are arrested for DUI in Phoenix AZ, you should consult a criminal defense attorney to discuss your matter and defense options. Arizona has strict laws and hrsh penalties for DUI. You will need a legal advocate to represent you in court. There are defenses that can be used combat DUI charges. With experienced and effective legal representation you will increase your chances of getting a good outcome in your case

If you “Like” this article please let us know with a +1! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak
4500 S. Lakeshore Drive
Tempe AZ 85282
(480) 413-1499
www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com
www.novakazlaw.com
Arizona DUI, DWI, Drunk Driving & Criminal Defense Firm
Serving Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix & Scottsdale AZ

News & Law Review By: Law Office of James Novak, PLLC, Phoenix DUI & Criminal Defense Firm On March 21, 2012, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law “HB 2374 – Deferred Prosecution” Attached is a copy of the House Bill. In absence of legal challenge it is expected to go into effect July 2012. HB 2374 amends the current law A.R.S. § 11-361. In effect it liberalizes the law in favor of the defendant. It allows more opportunities to those charged with non-dangerous offenses, non-serious offenses, to participate in deferred sentencing and diversion programs, previously prohibited. It also allows those who have previously completed such a program to participate again for new criminal charges.

Deferred Sentencing or Diversion Program – Purpose of the Programs

The intended purpose and effects of the programs are bilateral for both the State and the Defendant:

• If a defendant agrees to participation in the program, and completes it successfully, the charges are permanently dismissed. The defendant receives confirmation of the dismissal by the Superior Court. If the defendant fails to complete the program, the charges will be reinstated; trial, conviction or sentencing will retroactively be continued where it left off.

• In theory, by participating in an appropriate program of professional counseling or treatment the person gets help they need to avoid the chance of repeating a criminal offense or recidivism in the future.

• Successful Diversion Programs help ease the strain on the overpopulated prisons

• The expenses of assessments and participation in the programs are the responsibility of the defendant. This saves the state the costs resulting from imprisonment as well as the diversion program.

Existing Criminal Law in effect until July 2012 – A.R.S. § 11-361

The current laws A.R.S. § 11-361 allows a defendant to participate in an approved program under supervision before entering a guilty plea or trial. The County Attorney of a participating county may not approve a diversion or deferment program for a defendant if they have:

1. Prior Felony Record; 2. Been accused of committing a “Dangerous Offense” Felony; 3. Previously completed a program established under this law New Criminal Law Effects on A.R.S. § 11-361 due to HB 2374 The new law to become effective in July 2012, liberalizes A.R.S. § 11-361 by allowing the following defendants previously prohibited from being considered as candidates for the diversion programs and deferred sentencing:

• Persons previous convicted of a felony charge may now be considered for candidacy in the programs as long as the conviction is not for a Serious offense; Dangerous Offense; Sexual offense; or Dangerous crime against children.

• A person may now be considered for candidacy in the diversion program or deferred sentencing for persons who has previously completed a special supervision program.

• A person is prohibited from being considered for candidacy in the diversion or deferring prosecution of they have had three or more convictions for:

1) Personal possession of a controlled substance;

2) Personal possession of drug paraphernalia

Criminal Defense Attorneys for Deferred Prosecution, and Diversion Program

Participation in Deferred Sentencing, Deferred Prosecution, and Diversion Programs are not automatic and not an entitlement programs. A Defendant must be eligible for such programs, as agreed upon by the Prosecution, and Court based on factors such as nature of the crime, prior criminal record, attitude of the defendant towards reform, safety of community if the defendant is released after successful completion of the program. If retained, an experienced criminal defense attorney will be actively involved to help eligible defendants qualify for the program. For more information regarding this new Arizona legislation visit:

http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Session_ID=107&Bill_Number=HB2374

If you “Like” this article please let us know! Feel Free to subscribe and “Share”!

Law Office of James Novak 4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Tempe AZ 85282 (480) 413-1499 www.Arizonacriminaldefenselawyer.com www.novakazlaw.com Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Serving Tempe, Phoenix,Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale, AZ Free Consultation! Call (480) 413-1499

June 4, 2011 Arizona News & Editorial Commentary Article By: James Novak, Arizona DUI and Criminal Defense Lawyer AZ SB 1200 was signed into law by the Governor Jan Brewer on April 29th, 2011, to take effect December 31, 2011. A controversial provision discretely found its way into the bill at the last minute. It contained restrictive language that was not included in the earlier versions of the bill. Thus, it deprived the public of input or debate on the issue. The provision causing upset involves the revocation of some AZ DUI defendant’s statutory right to a jury trial. It applies to DUI defendants who have been charged with a first time, non-extreme Arizona DUI charges, eliminates their statutory right to a trial by jury for their AZ DUI. It does include a consolation or alternative for the judge to hear the case and decide if the AZ DUI defendant is guilty or not guilty.

It didn’t take long before the restrictive amendment sparked opposition by many Arizona citizens, AZ DUI defense attorneys, and organizations such as The Committee for the Right to Jury Trial.

Among numerous provisions, the new AZ DUI law includes the following:

1. Gives municipalities, counties and certain local AZ jurisdictions judges the authority and discretion to offer such alternative penalties to eligible defendants, home-detention programs instead of incarceration in jail

2. Reduces the length of time from one year to 6 months for a first time, non extreme DUI offenders to use the DUI interlock device on their vehicles.

3. Eliminates the right for non-extreme, first time AZ DUI offenders the previous right to a jury trial. Instead only DUI defendants that have prior convictions, extreme DUI or less serious DUI charges to keep their previous statutory and inherent right to request a trial by jury.

The first provision makes good sense. It allows for some cost relief to help reduce the over crowded Arizona’s Jails. The second provision gives some relief to first time non-extreme misdemeanor DUI defendants. So far, so good right?

But then there is the third provision that’s facing fire. Arizona Law makers and proponents of the amendment claim that it was a move to reduce the State’s cost for expensive jury trials for those less serious DUI charges, where the blood test or breathalyzer test against them strong against the DUI defendants. The problem with that thinking, among many other reasons, is that it revokes an existing statutory right to those who fall within this category. In essence it could be argued that first time offenders are losing rights while repeat offenders get rewarded by preserving their rights.

Constitutional and Statutory Rights are one of the few things in life people lean on to protect them from mistreatment or abuses in the criminal justice system. If the move was all about Arizona saving money because “trials are too expensive” then someone needs to redo the math. How much will it cost the state of Arizona to fight any and all future repeal propositions that this amendment will face? So much for cost savings and the preservation of the States economic resources.

The Committee for the Right to Jury Trial, led by attorney Clifford Girard is asking voters to repeal that particular amendment of the new AZ DUI law in SB 1200. The committee needs to gather 86,405 signatures by July 19, 2011 to qualify for putting the repeal on the 2012 ballot. Opponents want the voters of Arizona to have the chance to decide, debate, and vote; a chance that was not provided to them before it was passed into law. Fair enough.

Article News Sources:

1) azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1200s.pdf

2) tuccsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/category/arizona-republic-news

3) Associated Press

4) Arizona Republic News.

5) AZ central.com

This news article and commentary has been posted for general public informational purposes only. All articles by this author are intended to raise awareness and generate discussion on a variety of Arizona State Law issues and topics. Note that Arizona legislation, laws, and bills are often presented and changing. If you have a criminal or DUI defense matter related to this topic, it is important that you consult or hire an Arizona criminal or AZ DUI lawyer in the jurisdiction or municipality of Arizona where you received your charges for up to date information.

If you have been arrested in Maricopa County for AZ DUI other criminal charges contact the Law Office of James Novak, for your Free Consultation at (480) 413-1499. Speak directly with experienced Arizona criminal Defense and DUI Defense Attorney and James Novak (Former Prosecutor). The Law Office of James Novak is devoted 100% to defending DUI, Drug & criminal charges in valley wide within Maricopa County including Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Tempe, Gilbert Arizona, East Valley, AZ and surrounding cities in Phoenix metro area.

March 30, 2011 News Post Article by: James Novak, Phoenix DUI and Criminal Defense Attorney Don’t fret if you have a qualifying debilitating medical condition not initially included on the list. The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) plans to accept petitions beginning January, 2012, for additional debilitating medical conditions to be considered as qualifying for use of prescription medical marijuana in Arizona. This is good news to many who feel they needed to use medical marijuana for relief of their symptoms, but their conditions did not initially qualify under the AZ medical marijuana law.

According to the AZ Medical Marijuana Rules patients suffering from the following medical conditions were considered to initially qualify (Cited in part):

• Cancer

• Glaucoma

• HIV

• AIDS

• Hepatitis C

• ALS

• Crohn’s disease

• Alzheimer’s disease Also there are certain symptoms that qualify, even though they may not be the result of a qualifying condition listed above.

A “chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition” is defined as one that causes the following symptoms below. (Cited in part):

• Cachexia or wasting syndrome;

• Severe and chronic pain;

• Severe nausea;

• Seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy;

• Severe or persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis

The ADHS will accept written requests to add medical conditions and chronic or debilitating symptoms of a condition to the current list. This opportunity will take place twice each calendar year, in January and July. There will be certain requirements and documentation needed by the ADHS in order to consider adding a new qualifying medical condition. Those requirements and documentation are outlined in detail, but reader friendly, at the ADHS official website in the Question and Answers section.

Article Source: Official ADHS Website: http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/calendar.htm . This article has been posted for general public informational purposes only. All articles by this author are intended to raise awareness and generate discussion on a variety of Arizona State Law issues and topics.

If you have been arrested in Maricopa County for AZ DUI other criminal charges contact the Law Office of James Novak, for your Free Consultation at (480) 413-1499. Speak directly with experienced Arizona criminal Defense and DUI Defense Attorney and James Novak (Former Prosecutor). The Law Office of James Novak is devoted 100% to defending DUI, Drug & criminal charges in valley wide within Maricopa County including Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Tempe, Gilbert Arizona, East Valley, AZ and surrounding cities in Phoenix metro area.

They’re here! Arizona Department of Health Services Publishes Final Rules for Administration of the AZ Medical Marijuana Act. Two more milestone dates added.

March 29, 2011 News Post Article by: James Novak, Phoenix DUI and Criminal Defense Attorney The ADHS published it’s Final Rules, Physician Certification Form, and Frequently Asked Questions and Answers which can be found at their official website http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/calendar.htm.

There you will also find two more milestone dates for future actions posted on the website: : 1) August, 2011: ADHS will select and award medical marijuana dispensary registration certificates.

2) January, 2012: ADHS will accept petitions for additional debilitating medical conditions.

Article Source: Official ADHS Website http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/calendar.htm: Refer to the Arizona Department of Health Services Official Website for more information on this article topic, latest news and expanded information http://www.azdhs.gov/prop203/calendar.htm .

This article has been posted for general public informational purposes only. All articles by this author are intended to raise awareness and generate discussion on a variety of Arizona State Law issues and topics.

If you have been arrested in Maricopa County for AZ DUI other criminal charges contact the Law Office of James Novak, for your Free Consultation at (480) 413-1499. Speak directly with experienced Arizona criminal Defense and DUI Defense Attorney and James Novak (Former Prosecutor).

The Law Office of James Novak is devoted 100% to defending DUI, Drug & criminal charges in valley wide within Maricopa County including Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Chandler, Tempe, Gilbert Arizona, East Valley, AZ and surrounding cities in Phoenix metro area.